nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Smoking Tobacco Products Ban in Ireland?

donutheadhomer

Should smoking tobacco products be banned in Ireland on the grounds that it causes harm to others/self and the health risks are too high to allow the habit to continue.
I know the government make a shedload of money in tobacco tax but is it worth it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

From that article:

The KPMG report was commissioned by big players in the legal tobacco industry.

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

thecatspjs

100% of non-smokers die

Howard Juneau

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

No. He said he wants to reduce the number of smokers significantly. He didn't say anything about banning it.

Banning cigarettes won't reduce the number of smokers, not much anyway. Most smokers would turn to the black market and as long as there's demand, there will always be people to meet that demand. So we'll lose a load of money in taxes and the people who smoke the products could be smoking even worse things and this would increase the number of patients with smoking related diseases.

Not a good idea imo, and I say this as a non smoker.

Tobacco free Ireland by 2025 said the article

darkpagandeath

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Tobacco free Ireland by 2025 said the article

Just like we have an Illegal drug free Ireland ?

Howard Juneau

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Just like we have an Illegal drug free Ireland ?

Couldnt give a fck, just repeating what was quoted in the paper ,

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

To be honest, I would sooner trust an anti-smoking group (whose agenda is simple - save people's lives) than the tobacco industry (whose agenda is equally simple - get people addicted to highly carcinogenic substances before they're legally old enough to make an informed choice).

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

To be honest, I would sooner trust an anti-smoking group (whose agenda is simple - save people's lives) than the tobacco industry (whose agenda is equally simple - get people addicted to highly carcinogenic substances before they're legally old enough to make an informed choice).

Lets ban car companies selling their product on TV then too....

And that's a very naive attitude to have it's not about saving lives with most of them groups it's about enforcing their view onto other's just like them hard-core animal rights crowds..

kneemos

Ban cigarettes and subsidise E cigarettes for six months.

My name is URL

I voted yes and I'm a smoker. It'd be interesting to see what the affects of a ban were if nothing else. It'd be doomed to fail from the get-go however. I doubt that even a sizeable minority of doctors would be in favour of a complete ban.

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lets ban car companies selling there product on TV then too....

And that's a very naive attitude to have it's not about saving lives with most of them groups it's about enforcing their view onto other's just like them hard-core animal rights crowds..

So organisations like the Irish Cancer Society are just enforcing their own view onto others for the sheer hell of it? You'd sooner trust reports commissioned by the tobacco industry than by an organisation like the Irish Cancer Society? Seriously?

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

So organisations like the Irish Cancer Society are just enforcing their own view onto others for the sheer hell of it? You'd sooner trust reports commissioned by the tobacco industry than by an organisation like the Irish Cancer Society? Seriously?

You're missing the part out where I said most ...

whats the point

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You're missing the part out where I said most ...

The bit in that article about passive smoking, just seems like extreme scaremongering to me.

MadsL

Links234 wrote: »

No because prohibition doesn't work.

Think existing smokers would just give up like that? I'd say many would turn to illegal sources to feed their habit, thus fueling more crime. Same reason the whole 'war on drugs' is bull**** and doesn't work. Same reason why prohibition in the states didn't work.

Let people smoke if they want to, and I say that as someone who really despises cigarette smoke

P_1 wrote: »

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.

A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

Here we go again .....

MadsL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Here we go again .....

Am I factually wrong?

Nemeses

Do you want to tackle obesity whilst your at it OP?

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Am I factually wrong?

If I had a severe illness/condition I would have to take a risk assessment of living my life or locking my self away. Yes I would expect people to be courteous if they were aware of my condition. But it would be my condition to manage not society's. And it is well known that asthma can be set off by a huge list of things but I’m not going down that road again....

My name is URL

MadsL wrote: »

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.

A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

This all the more humorous considering your views on gun control laws.

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

This all the more humorous considering your views on gun control laws.

Bullets are not vapourised and tend to go mostly where you intend them to go, unlike cig smoke.

Completely off-topic and ad hominum too.

Days 298

And we are off.....

MadsL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If I had a severe illness/condition I would have to take a risk assessment of living my life or locking my self away. Yes I would expect people to be courteous if they were aware of my condition. But it would be my condition to manage not society's. And it is well known that asthma can be set off by a huge list of things but I’m not going down that road again....

Tell me, if the latest craze was vaporising peanuts and breathing the smoke, and then someone died after an allergic reaction caused by their peanut allergy after they walked through the smoke on the street inadvertently. In this case wouldn't it be reasonable to ban peanut vaporisers?

mark13

There is no direct link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Tell me, if the latest craze was vaporising peanuts and breathing the smoke, and then someone died after an allergic reaction caused by their peanut allergy after they walked through the smoke on the street inadvertently. In this case wouldn't it be reasonable to ban peanut vaporisers?

No

And to use hyperbole like you... If someone standing on a fountain fell knocked themselves out and drowned would you ban fountains.. ?

[Deleted User]

Interesting article about second hand smoke and the lies we're told about it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-conversation-about-secondhand-smoke-and-lung-cancer/

MadsL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No

And to use hyperbole like you... If someone standing on a fountain fell knocked themselves out and drowned would you ban fountains.. ?

Fountains have a purpose. Peanut smoke is a silly and dangerous craze. It is unnecessary to inhale peanuts in a manner than can kill others when they can be ingested without vaporising them. Ban vaporising peanuts, keep peanuts legal.

Do you support lifting the ban on oral tobacco? If so why when it has a terrible incidence of mouth and throat cancer?

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Fountains have a purpose. Peanut smoke is a silly and dangerous craze. It is unnecessary to inhale peanuts in a manner than can kill others when they can be ingested without vaporising them. Ban vaporising peanuts, keep peanuts legal.

Do you support lifting the ban on oral tobacco? If so why when it has a terrible incidence of mouth and throat cancer?

Chewing tobacco gives other people cancer now ?

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting article about second hand smoke and the lies we're told about it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-conversation-about-secondhand-smoke-and-lung-cancer/

Logical fallacy.

Secondhand smoke kills is a true statement.

Doubts that secondhand smoke causes cancer does not mean that people do not get serious respiratory distress after SHS contact. That can be fatal.

MadsL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Chewing tobacco gives other people cancer now ?

Why is it banned so? Do you support that ban?

Wibbs

mark13 wrote: »

There is no direct link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

The links between secondhand smoke and lots of conditions are quite questionable. Should people be protected against possible risks? Certainly, but it can start to get damned silly too when taken to extremes. You can make a spurious argument on both sides. Take asthma. Forty years ago it was significantly rarer a condition. I knew one kid with it growing up. Ciggie smoke was everywhere. In pubs, cafes, people's houses, cinemas, planes, trains etc. Hell there were even ashtrays in some doctors offices and in hospital waiting rooms FFS. Yet far fewer asthmatics. So maybe secondhand smoke prevented asthma*? Well no

but you can see where correlation/causation can bring you.

*funny enough, that one kid I knew with asthma actually took up smoking. I kid thee not and his symptoms pretty much disappeared. :eek: I met him years later and he had gotten all healthy, running marathons and such and halfway through our few beers he hauled out his inhaler. I was WTF? and he told me the asthma came back a few months after he quit. Weird or what. Though I have a few theories...

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Why is it banned so? Do you support that ban?

Who knows ? Why is blasphemy still illegal laws were made by the government